John Cuthber

Water feels colder than air. Why? How warm is your hand? How warm is an ice cube? (and, for the record, please don't call me bro).

"it converts to iron phosphate (excess phos acid is at this point "gone")" That's not what excess means is it? Unless you plan to carefully measure the acid to get exactly enough to react with the rust, but not more, you are going to have leftover acid.

Since it makes Michel123456 feel better "It is universal. No material thing in the Universe travels faster than C." Happy now?

Two cats are sliding down a roof, which one falls off first? The one with the lowest mew.

Is space a material object- can you , for example, pick it up and throw it? " I hope that someone will explain why the speed of light is constant as measured by any inertial observer before I die." Ask Maxwell.

Space isn't a thing though, is it?

You do realise that citing a single death due to GM would actually make me look stupid in a way that calling me a GMO promoter never will. Why not try it?

All this talk of popcorn is making me hungry!

If this 'phone has a camera then 7 may be a moot point. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/inmate-charges-phone-hidden-false-leg-article-1.1306479

It is universal. Nothing in the Universe travels faster than C.

OK, show me the maths.

The iron phosphates are somewhat soluble in the excess acid.

Nope. Mass times velocity- sometimes. "In common usage the term "inertia" may refer to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is quantified by its mass), or sometimes to its momentum, depending on the context. " from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia but if we mean "Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion (including a change in direction). " (also from wiki) then it's mass. The fact is that it's a poorly defined word and oughtn't really pop up in science discussions without clarification.

Do you know that there is a search function on this website?

Why do you care?

The whole idea of changing the laws of physics is speculative. Why do you not think it should be in the speculation section? Anyway, we can't change the laws of physics so this idea is not going to achieve anything useful

"Posted 27 December 2013 - 04:22 AM Quote You do? Why? Just read this, carefully, with open eyes: Quote That doesn't ring evey warning bell there is? That is empty, bullshit, completely unsound in argument and extrapolation - the nonexiatence of the supposed ":exhaustiveness" , and the inadequacy of this research to the support of any such claim as "safety" is immediately obvious to even cursory inspection."" OK, the quoting is a bit messed up there but it's Overtone's assertion. Fair enough- if it's not true that all the studies (and there have been hundreds) have found no evidence of harm even though we have been doing it since the 70s,* then it should be easy for you to cite evidence of the harm done. Let us see the evidence of harm done. Stop soapboxing and stump up the data. Incidentally, the issues due to monoculture don't count. we do that with non gm crops too, for example bananas. * in case you wondered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering#History

Strictly, it doesn't disprove it but it completely discredits it. You said "because all movement stops at absolute zero, time stops". But all movement does not stop. So your premise is false, so any deductions from it are unsupported. And then there's the issue that no change in the rate of time with temperature has ever been noted. The idea is still a non starter. Unless you can actually come up with real evidence for it you are just soapboxing.

Nope, movement continues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy If all movement stopped it would be a breach of the uncertainty principle. Also, there is no evidence of any change in the rate of passage of time with temperature. This whole idea is a non-starter.

Why not just watch the pretty patterns it makes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvesting_lightning_energy

If you are doing physics, inertia is just mass.

The simple answer is that, if you throw something out fast enough, you can get an arbitrarily large change in the ship's velocity.

That's unfortunate, because he's substantially wrong. This bit "True scientists believe in love because it is observable" is right, but he simply hasn't understood evolution: I'd explain why but it's OT.

Medical schools are unlikely to accept applications from people who don't use capital letters. The army might still take applicants for cannon fodder, but I think even they are getting more selective that they used to be. https://jobsstatic.civilservice.gov.uk/csjobs.html Good luck.

If you pass an electric current through water about 1 to 1.5 volts is used in producing hydrogen. The rest- roughly a billion times as much if we are talking about a thunderbolt- is wasted as heat. A typical lightning strike passes about 25 coulombs of electric charge. that's enough to release 25/96000 moles of hydrogen atoms* or about 12.5/96000 moles of hydrogen gas. About 0.0001 moles of hydrogen or about 2.5 mls of hydrogen gas. Figure two here http://gut.bmj.com/content/34/6/818.full.pdf indicates that people fart more hydrogen than this massive undertaking could hope to produce. Seeking to trap the energy from lightning isn't very practical in the first place- because power from other sources is cheap. Seeking to do it by electrolysis has the slight problem of wasting something like 99.9999999% of the energy available. Of course, you could address this by stacking about a billion electrolytic cells on top of each other. If each one is just 1cm thick (and that's probably reasonable, given the power dissipation- you don't want the cells vapourising). That gives a stack of cells ten million metres high. * from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_constant